DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
JSR
Docket No: 10007-08
6 November 2008
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 6 November 2008. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 14 October 2008, a copy of which is
attached, and your revised letter of 21 October 2008.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
Specifically regarding the contested fitness report for 1
October 2005 to 5 duly 2006, the Board noted that the order at
enclosure (4) to your application concerned recruiting
probation. The Board was unable to find you should have been
put on recruiting probation before your relief as area staff
noncommissioned officer in charge (ASNCOIC) since your relief
was not based entirely on failure to make recruiting mission.
The Board was unable to find that you were not given a chance to
respond to the allegation you had not made your recruiting
mission before it appeared in your fitness report; nor could it
find an extra stipulation was added to the mission in the final
days of the recruiting period, that you did not learn you were
considered to have failed to make mission until 6 July 2006, or
that the conclusion you had failed to make mission was based on
erroneous data. The Board found it was a harmless error that
the reporting senior (RS) mentioned the alleged failure to make
mission in section C (“Billet Accomplishments”) of the fitness
report. The Board found section A, item 6a (“Commendatory
Material”) was correctly marked because you received a
commendation. The Board was unable to find section A, item 6b
(“Derogatory Material”) should have been marked, as it was
unable to find you were the subject of derogatory material or
incident reports received by the RS from outside the reporting
chain or from within the reporting chain above the RS level
during the reporting period. The Board found the reviewing
officer and third sighting officer adequately addressed the
issues you raised. While the Board did not condone the late
submission of the fitness report in question, it was unable to
conclude this invalidated the report, since it could not find
your ability to defend yourself was prejudiced. The Board found
it was proper for the RS to mention the service record page 11
counseling entry for misuse of a government computer, as this
was part of the reason for your relief as ASNCOIC. Finally,
concerning the other Marines of your command whom you asserted
to have committed misconduct without receiving a disciplinary
action or page 11 counseling entry, the Board was unable to find
their circumstances were substantially identical to yours.
Since the Board was unable to find your change of duty was
unwarranted or improperly effected, it could not find the
contested fitness report for 1 October 2006 to 4 January 2007,
documenting your performance of your new duty as a canvassing
recruiter, was invalid.
In view of the above, your application has been denied. The
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Lune:
W. DEAN P
Executive tor
Enclosure
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 06678-06
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 2O370 -5100BJGDocket No: 6678-0617 November 2005This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.You requested removing the fitness reports for 1 June 2004 to 9 May 2005 and 9 May to 30 June 2005, as well as your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.It...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 10160-06
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.Sincerely,ROBERT D. ZSALMAN Acting Executive DirectorEnclosure DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS3280 RUSSELL ROAD QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103IN REPLY REFER TO: 1610 MMER/PERBNOV...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00839-09
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 10 January to 28 February 2006 by restoring the mark in section A, item 6.b (“Derogatory Material”) whose removal CMC had directed in your previous case, docket number 5661-08; removing, from the section D.1 (“Performance”) justification, “MRO [Marine reported on] was relieved of duties for violating Depot Order P1510.30L on three separate occasions.” and “because on another...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10350-08
concurred with the rd also considered your rebuttal letter dated ith enclosure. The Board could not find the reviewing officer (RO) lacked sufficient lobservation to evaluate you, noting observation need not be direct. Consequently, when) applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01458-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEXWASHINGTON DC 20370-5100BJGDocket No:1458-079 March 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for 13 May to 31 October 2005 by removing section K.4 (reviewing officer’s comments)A three-member...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07162-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 2 July 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 01522-07
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-51 00BJGDocket No:1522-079 March 2007This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed modifying the contested fitness report for7 September 2002 to 30 June 2003 by removing the following reporting senior (RS) comments from...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02424-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. The Board found the fitness report for 1 January to 21 May 2007 should stand, though it disagreed with the PERB position that the removal of the report for 3 November to 31 December 2006 nullified your objection to not having been counseled before your mark in section G.2 (“Decision Making...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 02655-06
Finally, while the contested report’s late submission is not condoned, the Board was unable to find this invalidated it.In view of the above, your application has been denied. Enclosure • DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYHEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22i34~5 103 IN REPLY REFER TO: MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OFNAVAL RECORDSSubj: MARINE CORPS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD (PERB) ADVISORY OPINION~ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF (a) DD...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR5199 14
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 19 June 2014. Finally, the Board was unable to find the RS made inappropriate comments on your personal life. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.